Childcare Bill - Standing Committee D

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Childcare Bill

David Amess: Good morning. Please dress comfortably. If anyone wishes to remove their jacket, please do so and if anyone is unhappy with the arrangements, please let me know quietly.

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move,
That—
(1)during proceedings on the Childcare Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 6th December) meet—
(a)at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 6th December;
(b)at 9.00 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. on Thursday 8th December;
(c)at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 13th December;
(d)at 9.00 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. on Thursday 15th December;
(e)at 9.00 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 20th December;
(f)at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 10th January;
(2)the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 21; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1; Clauses 22 to 30; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2; Clauses 31 to 47; Schedule 1; Clauses 48 to 95; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3; Clause 96; Schedules 2 and 3; Clauses 97 to 104; remaining new Clauses; remaining new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3)the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on Tuesday 10th January.
We are pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. In your authoritative, but friendly, start to the sitting, you have given us a flavour of how you will help us to take forward our business efficiently. I look forward to that and I have no doubt that Mr. Benton will chair the proceedings equally well.
I open the sitting with a strong sense of quiet satisfaction and achievement, and some pride. As I mentioned on Second Reading, this is the first ever Bill that is devoted specifically to early years and child care. The Committee has a genuine opportunity permanently to transform the shape, quality and availability of early years services to our youngest children and their parents. I welcome the support and consensus that were reflected on Second Reading. I am particularly glad of the opportunity to subject the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny, which is what it deserves and demands. The programme motion gives us sufficient time to do that. It has no knives, but I hope that we can make reasonable progress to enable us to do justice to the debate that we need to have on all measures.
I am pleased that I am sharing my role in Committee with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). I also have a superlative collection of Labour Back Benchers behind me, all of whom have demonstrated their long-standing commitment to this agenda for our youngest children.  I see on the Opposition Benches Members and colleagues of equal standing, including the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is developing a deserved reputation for expertise on these issues, having served on the Committee on the Children Act 2004. I welcome the chance to hear from him and I look forward to our deliberations.
The programme motion is a sensible attempt to ensure that all the major provisions are debated and I hope that the Committee accepts it.

Tim Loughton: I reiterate what the Minister said about welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Amess. This is the not the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, which was fair and entertaining—I am sure that things will be no different in our proceedings over the next few weeks. I mirror the Minister’s comments and welcome the superlative team on the Opposition Benches, two of whom we are holding in store until a little later this morning, when they will appear. I am also grateful for the Minister’s comments about my developing a deserved reputation, as she put it. That will no doubt be terminated at 3 o’clock this afternoon—we shall wait and see what happens when the leadership of my party changes.
I welcome the Bill. We supported it on Second Reading, when we had a good debate that was informative and well informed. I am sure that many hon. Members who spoke in it who are represented on the Committee will contribute to the worthwhile scrutiny of the Bill.
I will set out some of the things that we want to scrutinise, relating my comments to the motion before us and how much time we will spend on such matters. I am pleased and grateful that the Government have given us three weeks in Committee and have not specified any knives—as is the colloquial term. It became clear when we debated Children Bills in Committee that when we deal with pioneering legislation in particular—as we are—it is important that we have as much time as possible to explore new areas. The same goes for this Bill.
Although we support the Bill’s general principles and thrust, we are concerned about the lack of detail. I also notice that along with the many amendments that we have tabled, the Government have tabled some amendments. Will the Minister produce additional explanatory notes to go with those and any future Government amendments? Such notes would be useful, particularly when we need a briefing on detailed and complex matters before their discussion in Committee.
On Second Reading I asked whether the Minister intends to produce draft regulations or codes of practice in Committee. Much of the Bill relies on as yet unpublished regulations. It would enrich our deliberations greatly if we had some detail—not in finished form, which is why I suggest draft regulations, at least—so that we knew about some of the measures that we are signing up to, particularly in those areas that are left to regulation by the Secretary of State.
One such area appears in clause 1, which is why I hope that we shall spend some time on it. Subsection (3) refers to the Secretary of State prescribing targets. The clause goes on to say:
“In performing their duties under this section, an English local authority must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.”
Clause 5 gives a wide-ranging power to the Secretary of State. She may by order amend the definition of early childhood services. That goes to the root of the Bill, so it would be useful if, in these early stages of our deliberations, the Minister could provide us with much more detail about the powers that she expects the Secretary of State to take upon herself if we pass the legislation in its current form.
We want to scrutinise the detail in clause 1, particularly with regard to the duties of local authorities. That is why the first component of the Bill is important. We need assurances from the Minister about what exactly child care providers—a large business in this country—can expect from the legislation now and as it unravels in the coming years. That must be made clear.
We must know what obligations local authorities can expect. Terms such as “reasonably practical” and providing “sufficient” child care must be defined much more closely, so that we know whether a duty has been achieved and, indeed, whether it is achievable. If it is not achievable by a local authority, we must know what the penalties on it or any of its partners might amount to.
There are also considerations about children with disabilities and children from black and minority ethnic communities. We should like to see more detail in the Bill. We must know how a duty will be assessed, and whether it will work; and when it will be assessed, and whether it is working. One of our watchwords is “quality”, which as far as I can see does not appear in the Bill, or certainly does not appear in its initial provisions.
I welcome the Minister mentioning “quality” as an integral part of the Bill. It is no good just ticking the boxes and assessing whether its aims have been achieved by the number of child care places provided if the quality of those leaves a lot to be desired. We shall judge its effectiveness on the quality of the outcomes that it achieves.
We are concerned also about the capability of local authorities to carry out many of the provisions. We shall ask for further detail about that. I was involved in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and, just a few months ago, the Children Act 2004, as the Minister said. Those pieces of legislation placed, and are still placing, because not all provisions have come into effect, greater duties on local authorities to promote adoption and provide adoption support services. There are new proceedings for care, making adoption orders and dealing with the adoption and adoption contact registers.
The 2004 Act recently introduced new structures for local authorities: directors of children’s services, working with partners, and local safeguarding children boards. Many of the new bodies that are being  set up and the new duties on private fostering arrangements, data collection and so on have not come into force and local authorities are still wrestling with how they will deal with them. I hope that they will be successful. My party supported most of those initiatives, which are intended to improve the welfare and outcomes for children, but we are now about to place a new load of responsibilities and duties on local authorities. We must be assured that they can cope with them.
One point that the Secretary of State made on Second Reading was that the Bill places no unfunded duties on local authorities. We do not understand how that can be the case. It is imperative that local authorities go along with the Bill and that they can enact it. There are questions not just about financial resources but also about providing the people. As with the 2002 and 2004 Acts, all the wise words that we may debate here, and all the extra specifications that may come as part of the legislation, will be undermined if there are not professional people on the ground to put them into force.
We know about the great gaps in personnel, particularly child protection social workers and people who provide early years child care services. We want assurances from the Minister as we go through the clauses that the measures are achievable and that local authorities can cope with the enormous duties that are being placed on them, which, by and large, they have welcomed. However, they want detailed answers to some questions. We want to spend a large part of the Committee’s time on early stages, the relationship with local authorities and how the measures will be brought into being, as local authorities are key to that.
On part 2, no Conservative Member who represents a Welsh seat is serving on the Committee, although we could have had someone this time. That has not been possible previously for reasons that you know, Mr. Amess. However, our Welsh colleagues, who are being used in other places, will advise us.
Many clauses in part 3 deal with the functions of the chief inspector. Again, we should like some detail from the Minister. We have particular concerns about the splitting of the register—there are now two—and how they will operate concurrently, how children of different age groups will be dealt with, the registration of early years child minders and the involvement of Ofsted and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The debate will be timely, as CSCI is short lived. The intention is that it should become part of the Health Care Commission—an even bigger leviathan—so we need some assurances that CSCI’s successor will be able to perform the undertakings that it is given in the Bill.
We should like to spend some time on clause 39 onwards. Those clauses deal with the early years foundation stage. We had some lively debate on that on Second Reading. Again, while there is a great deal of common ground between the principle of what the Government are trying to achieve and what we would like to be achieved, we have concerns about language and terminology—more importantly, how the Bill will be interpreted by the local authorities and  inspectorates that will be responsible for monitoring whether the early years foundation stage requirements are met.
Many hon. Members summed up the requirements by referring to the word “taught” in clause 41, which we feel is far too educationally prescriptive. “Schoolification” is a horrible expression that has been used by one of the children’s bodies. The very early years, particularly, are about care and development, rather than the teaching of specific educationally biased requirements.
The Minister sought to give some reassurances. I hope that she will be able to go into greater detail than what is in “Birth to Three Matters”, which contains much material that we support and have supported. My concern is about how the requirements are interpreted by those people whose job it is to monitor whether things are being done properly. The difference between care and education is key, so we have tabled amendments to try to distinguish between infants aged nought to two, whom we refer to as babies, and those aged two to five, whom we refer to as young children.
The development of infants aged nought to two is absolutely key and different from what comes later. Some of us touched on attachment theory, brain development and physical development during those very early years. We shall seek to introduce differentiation into the Bill to recognise the different requirements, social skills and development of babies and very young children and, again, there may be some debate about the terminology.
That sets out how we would like to spend our time scrutinising the Bill and I hope that the Minister will allow us to concentrate on those areas. She has been generous in allowing us to consider the Bill without knives over the next few weeks and if we all get on like a house on fire, we might even finish before Christmas, but I will not predict that now.
I am sure that we are all greatly looking forward to reaching clause 101 which, for some reason, deals with the thorny issue of the Isles of Scilly. I do not understand why they are receiving special treatment, but perhaps the Minister will have a long briefing on why they are different from elsewhere in the world.
When I saw Government amendments to clause 104, which refers to the Bill’s short title, my ears pricked up. Whenever I have been involved with a child care Bill I have recommended that its title should be changed because there are too many Children Bills, which causes confusion. However, whenever I have tried to change the title, the Government have not acquiesced, but in this case, it is the Childcare Bill. The Minister said earlier that this is pioneering legislation and there are no previous child care Bills to create confusion so I am delighted not to have table amendments to clause 104. The Government, for technical reasons, seem to have beaten me to it.
Those are the areas on which we want to concentrate and I look forward to a constructive discussion. I am sure that there will be common interest and debate.  What really matters is the detail of what we achieve and whether it can be achieved by those who are in a position to put it into effect. If we can have such assurances and the detail that we need to show to local authorities, child care providers and other people involved in child care, we shall be happy to continue to support the Bill.

Annette Brooke: I, too, welcome your chairmanship, Mr. Amess, and look forward to the next few weeks. My hon. Friends and I also look forward to working with both Ministers and the official Opposition. I hope that the Committee’s approach will be co-operative so that we achieve the best outcome and, most importantly, a Bill that really delivers a difference. We have tabled many probing amendments, with probably more to come, because if there is vagueness and loopholes, we will not achieve what everyone wants. We share the Bill’s objectives.
I am slightly embarrassed about introducing my team this morning. I must apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who served with me on the Children Bill and has great experience and expertise. He will make a great contribution when we discuss part 2, which covers Wales. We have had a change of personnel because we planned that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) would serve on the Committee, but the timing of a family event—twins are expected imminently—is incompatible with his presence here today, as it was yesterday when the House was discussing the Work and Families Bill. I am without a colleague this morning, but that will soon be remedied.

Maria Eagle: I hope that the hon. Lady will let us know when the happy event occurs. As one of two, I know from my parents what a shock it was when it happened.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Under-Secretary for that intervention. Rather more to the point, we think that the time available to us will be adequate. I hope that it is. There is a responsibility on us to make the time work for us.
I concur with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—I mentioned this on Second Reading—in that I have a concern about the constant references to regulations, guidance and the powers of the Secretary of State, which, at this stage, we do not know enough about. I hope that, in the course of discussion, more will be revealed. I agree that we will be spending a lot of time considering the duties on local authorities. That is inevitable because, as I said earlier, we want to ensure that the words are translated into meaningful action.
As I indicated on Second Reading, we want to consider not only quantity, but quality. Inevitably that means that, as the Bill progresses, we need to consider the early years foundation stage. I am committed to the principles of that because it is a key to quality, but, nevertheless, we are concerned about some of the terminology. I have tabled some amendments—there  are some more to come—relating to what I call “nots” because tighter definition is needed. Once we have got that bit and the function of local authorities sorted, everything relating to inspection will be crucial. We will need to consider quality assurance, inspection processes and how to go for continuous improvement within the settings and the work force. This is the area, among all the others, in which we need to consider the continuous professional development of the work force. I hope that we will be able to touch on that important area as the Bill progresses.
My comments have been brief because, rather than repeating what was said on Second Reading, I would like to get on with the detail of the Bill. We certainly pledge to work as constructively as possible during the process.

Beverley Hughes: I am grateful for those remarks from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and from the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) because they reflect the spirit in which all Members have come to the Committee. There is agreement on the direction of policy in the Bill and a commitment to young children and also on getting under the skin of some of the proposals to ensure that, as far as we can, the proposals are enacted and that when other people are charged with implementing them, they will work and deliver the policy objectives.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham describe the Bill as pioneering legislation. It is pioneering and significant. We are about to start discussing amendments to it, but, none the less, we have a commitment to reduce inequalities among young children by means of primary legislation.
I accept the point that such duties inevitably mean that a great deal of the detail will have to be included in regulations and guidance. I understand that Opposition Members want some assurances about the detail of that guidance and those regulations. I am sure that they agree that it would not be appropriate to include the level of detail that will be required in the Bill, so the Government have no option when it comes to proceeding in that way. I understand the concerns of Opposition Members and know that they want to see more detail. As we go through the Bill, where we can, we will bring forward outline guidance. In any case, all the guidance will be subject to detailed consultation with people outside this place. We will do our best to ensure that the Committee gets the assurances that it needs within the constraints of the three weeks available for debating the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about explanatory notes on Government amendments. When they are more than technical amendments, we will certainly provide explanatory notes in advance. There is a great deal of expertise as well as commitment on this Committee. I very much share with hon. Members on the Opposition Benches the view that the issues that they want to discuss are the key issues. It is important that we try to get them right. I thank those hon.  Members for their contributions, and I hope that we can accept the programme motion and proceed with our debate.

Question put and agreed to.

David Amess: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies of the resolutions are available in the Room. I should also remind Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman Mr. Joe Benton and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.

Clause 1 - General functions of local authority: England

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out ‘reduce inequalities between’ and insert
‘raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out
‘the reduction of inequalities between’
and insert
‘the increase in the levels of well-being of’.
No. 65, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out
‘the reduction of inequalities between’
and insert
‘raising the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.’.
No. 66, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert
‘which must be based on qualitative outcomes.’.
No. 67, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out ‘are met’ and insert
‘do not act against securing long term quality outcomes in the provision of childcare.’.
No. 116, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert
‘, and that one target is not met to the detriment of any other.’.

Tim Loughton: We want to spend some time teasing out the detail of the clause, and so many of the amendments are, by necessity, probing. We shall see how the Minister responds to them. A great number of amendments have been so far tabled, and I guess that several more shall be tabled before the Bill is out. There are some interesting groupings, which involve flitting from clause to clause and, later on, from schedule to clause. However, with your understanding, Mr. Amess, I am sure that we shall pull it off.
The first group of amendments is tabled in the name of myself and my hon. Friends; no doubt, they are supported by the latecomer to this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), whom we welcome. No doubt, she will add her name to the amendments.
Amendment No. 64, taken with amendment No. 1, is about teasing out how the Government plan to reduce inequalities. All in the Room shall applaud the aim of reducing inequalities in well-being between  young children. The Government have had mixed success with that during the past eight-and-a-half years. Despite the Chancellor’s claims about taking children out of poverty, the poverty gap between children and between the richest and poorest has by several measures actually widened. I do not want to see the narrowing of a gap just for the sake of ticking a box; I want to see the raising of standards, qualities and experiences for all.
Several hon. Membersrose—

Tim Loughton: I am delighted to give way.

Edward Miliband: My understanding is that the number of children in poverty went up from about 1.9 million to 4.2 million between 1979 and 1997, and that that figure has fallen by about 700,000, going on figures from 2003-04. I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means when he says that poverty has gone up during the past eight years.

Tim Loughton: We could debate the nature of poverty all day long but you, Mr. Amess, would not allow us. However, reports from Save the Children predict that the target to take all children out of poverty by 2020 will not be met. The definition of what constitutes poverty is a movable feast as well. The point is that it is in everybody’s interests to lift up the standards of all children, because we could so easily achieve a reduction in inequalities by reducing the standard of the best, which none of us wants.

Julie Kirkbride: As we are discussing that point, my hon. Friend should remind the Committee that one way in which the Government made welcome progress on reducing child poverty was, nevertheless, by changing the statistics on which the figures were based. In one fell swoop, the Government removed 1 million children from poverty simply by changing the statistics, although there had been no increase in income whatsoever.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and such a move would not have been the first from a Chancellor who has form. He was hoisted with his own petard when we heard the growth figures yesterday. However, I shall not go down that line, as you would haul me back to order, Mr. Amess.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab) rose—

Tim Loughton: If the hon. Lady wants to haul us back to order, I would be delighted to give way to her.

Helen Goodman: I just want to point out that, on a definition based on children living in low income households before housing costs, the number of children living in poverty has fallen from 3.1 million to 2.5 million since 1998. If we want to use an alternative definition—the number living in low income households after housing costs—that too has fallen, from 4.1 million to 3.5 million.

Tim Loughton: As I said, I am trying to find alternative figures to those produced by the Government; ones that have not been doctored. Anyway, the brief itself refers to relative poverty.
The purpose of the amendment is to improve standards for all. That is why we suggest replacing “reduce inequalities between” with
“raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged”.
I am sure that that is where we all would want to concentrate resources and attention. That covers amendments Nos. 64 and 1.
I believe that amendment No. 65 was repeated because of a typo. There was a reference to equality rather than quality, which is why it appeared as a separate amendment. We shall not press it.
I want to get back to the important theme of quality of outcomes. As I said earlier, this should not be a numbers game but should be about the quality of outcomes for children. Also, the parents are secondary. Many of the comments that we heard in support of Sure Start were rightly based on the impressions and satisfaction levels of the children, which are important, but of primary importance is the effect on children, not just for the convenience of parents but for helping children.
That idea is essential and fundamental to what we are debating. It goes to the opening clause of the Children Act 1989, which talks about the paramountcy of the welfare of the child. The Bill, which refers to the 1989 Act in various places, should be based on that. I am much more concerned with raising the quality of children’s experiences and outcomes. Local authorities already have a duty to co-operate with the welfare provisions set out in sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004, so the amendment fits in with that.
We take the theme forward to amendment No. 66, which would add
“which must be based on qualitative outcomes”
to the description of local authorities’ duties of improving well-being and reducing inequalities. We want to raise the qualitative outcomes. As I said, quality is not specifically mentioned in this part of the Bill, but it has a place here. One of our worries is how assessments will be made as to whether the aims of the Bill have been achieved. They must have a qualitative element and not be based purely on quantity. That is reinforced by the comments of the Local Government Association, which stated:
“The LGA believes that the definition of ‘sufficient’ childcare must cover the quality as well as the quantity of provision.”
On its experience in child care services, the LGA states that
“in key areas—sustainability, workforce, training and quality—we are still at a relatively early stage of development.”
It is essential that we refer in the Bill to what is expected in qualitative terms rather than just to headlines and quantity.
Quantity can be judged simply by the number of child care places. There has been an increase in the number of places, but some have disappeared. Are those new child care places better in quality than those that have gone by the way? I hope that with improved  training, inspection techniques and requirements and improved information going to parents when choosing places for their children, the overall standard of new child care places will surpass that of previous child care places or places that have disappeared.

Justine Greening: My constituency has large council estates and many children do not have English as their first language, so quality is important. Plonking children who do not have English as their first language in a nursery with only English-speaking teachers who have no ability to communicate with them would disadvantage those children even more than staying at home and being taught by their parents.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes an exceedingly pertinent point, which is why I singled out a couple of particularly sensitive areas. For children with disabilities and children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, communication is vital, particularly during the very early years. If a child care worker cannot communicate orally with a child, that child’s chances of forming attachments and developing socially will be disadvantaged. It is right to create dozens or hundreds of extra child care places for people with young children in ethnic community areas. If we do not have properly trained child care providers, we might do damage and vice versa. That is one example of why the qualitative element is essential.

Julie Kirkbride: I hesitate to raise a discordant note on the Opposition Benches, but something that has always struck me is young children’s ability to communicate in any language. When they are very young they can absorb any language. They learn language by imitating people around them. Is it really such a big issue to provide child care provision in the same language?

Tim Loughton: I am sure that the language of “gaggagoo” is truly multinational. We are at pains to get away from education in the early stages. We do not expect children at the age of two to be able to recite “War and Peace” in a multitude of languages. That is not the issue. It is about communication, often without speech but with eye contact, touch, play and everything that goes with that. Language becomes important for older children. That importance is not overriding, but is part of the whole development of children to become socially skilled and to form attachments with the people around them. At the appropriate time, the appropriate use of language becomes an important element as the child develops.
My hon. Friend and I are not arguing because we do not do that. The issue is the appropriateness at various ages.

Helen Goodman: I do not wish to intrude in the argument on the Conservative Benches. We are discussing clause 1, but clauses 43 and 41 are relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s point. The regulations that will be the basis of the inspection cover the welfare of children and the suitability of persons to care for children, as well as their qualifications and training. Learning and development includes personal, social  and emotional development and communication. The matters that the hon. Gentleman is discussing are addressed elsewhere in the Bill.

Tim Loughton: They are certainly addressed elsewhere in the Bill. We want to spend quite a lot of time on that at the appropriate point, which is not while we are discussing clause 1, as I am sure you will speedily point out, Mr. Amess. However, I thank the hon. Lady for providing a trailer to that part of the Bill.
The point is clear. Many of us will have seen the “Panorama” programme last year involving an undercover report about certain nurseries that, on the face of it, had received good or satisfactory inspection reports. The standard and quality of care that many children were getting left a lot to be desired. The boxes may have been ticked, but the quality of the care being provided to those children was woefully inadequate.
We must ensure that the inspection regime and the requirements placed on local authorities stress quality and not quantity and certain headline figures that can easily be produced without impacting on the quality of care that the child gets.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab) rose—
Edward Milibandrose—

Tim Loughton: We are going to be on clause 1 for a very long time. I shall give way for the first time to the hon. Lady.

Ann Coffey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that improving quality and addressing inequality are not exclusive, and that one can and should do both? Interestingly, the hon. Member for Putney made an excellent point from her personal knowledge of the difficulties of disadvantaged children on council estates. She noted that if their language does not develop properly and appropriately, they cannot take advantage of nursery education offered at three years old.
We can and should have good quality nursery education and child care at three years old, but if we do not address the inherent inequality in access to language learning at an early age, we shall not achieve the desired outcome that the hon. Gentleman shares.

Tim Loughton: I completely agree with the hon. Lady, and I made it clear that I am not trying to achieve something that is not implicit in the phraseology used in the Bill. The two points are not mutually exclusive. However, I want to achieve a rise in quality by stressing that we must raise the least well-off to the standard of the best well-off and take everybody with us, and not try to narrow the gap just for the sake of it. The two points are completely complementary.

Ann Coffey: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees. Further to that point, does he agree that sometimes one needs to include extra measures to address the problem of raising the most disadvantaged to the level of the lesser disadvantaged?

Tim Loughton: Again, I agree. I am getting worried about this complete agreement. I am also unused to being in a Committee in which so many Government Back Benchers have sought to contribute. It is good; I wish that it had happened in the Adoption and Children Bill. Clearly, the Whip in charge is rather more benign than usual.
What the hon. Lady is saying, with which I agree, is implicit in the terminology that I have used in the amendment, so I hope that she will support it. It says,
“raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.”
All of us should agree on that. Projects such as Sure Start are instances of it, and no doubt the hon. Lady was thinking of that.
Sure Start has concentrated on the most disadvantaged 15 per cent. of communities, which clearly need special help. That is why we supported Sure Start and its extension right from its early stages, and that is why we are just as keen as the hon. Lady that a qualitative report of the value-added that Sure Start can bring is made available, so that people can see how it is working.
There has been a lot of criticism, and we want Sure Start to work. If certain aspects of it do not work, we want it to be adapted so that it can work for even more disadvantaged children, and for those above the level of disadvantaged. Where there is the need, we want to extend Sure Start to as many people as possible.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is possible to raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged without reducing inequality? If the outcomes for the most advantaged are raised even further, inequality is increased at the same time as outcomes for the most disadvantaged are reduced. What the Bill is admirably trying to do is reduce inequality.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady is trying to achieve what we are all trying to achieve, but I do not accept that it is implicitly necessary to reduce the level of attainment of those who are better off in order to promote the achievement of the less well-off. That is the implication of her comments.

Edward Miliband: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: No, I will not. Let me carry on with this point. The important thing is the individual child’s experience, the quality of that experience, and the quality of the care and support provided to him or her, not the narrowing of the gap or where they happen to appear on a socio-economic turnout. It is crucial that every child is treated on his or her own merits and requirements, and that appropriate care and attention are applied to the child. It is entirely immaterial to the experiences of the most disadvantaged children that better-off children become slightly better off. I repeat that that is why amendment No. 64 singles out the most disadvantaged, not the gap. I hope that the hon. Members for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods)  and for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) would be able to support that, because what they are saying seems to suggest that they believe that as well.

Edward Miliband: The discussion following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has been illuminating. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not mind if the relative life chances of the poorest become worse over time, as long as the absolute standard of the most disadvantaged rises, and that it does not matter if the situation of the most advantaged rises much faster. However, it does matter, because relative life chances have a massive effect on people.
Let us consider the people in my constituency: how their situation compares with that of the most advantaged will completely shape the course of their lives. That is why the amendment is misplaced. Of course we are not in favour of levelling down, but it is important to ensure that we address the fact that there is such a wide gap between the life chances of the poorest and those of the better-off.

Tim Loughton: I think that we have some disagreement at this early stage of the Bill. Everything that we are trying to do to improve this part of the Bill is focused on one thing: individual children and improving their outcomes and experiences. That must take precedence over relativity, in which I am not really interested. I am interested in improving the standards of those who most need to have their standards and life chances improved. Amendment No. 64 encapsulates that.
The hon. Member for Doncaster, North can wax lyrical about making it fairer for everybody by levelling out relativity. I am not concerned with that if it means that we could hold back some children. I am most concerned with ensuring that everybody can be levelled upwards rather than trying to achieve a degree of mediocrity in the middle to which everybody should subscribe. I do not believe that that would help the most disadvantaged children.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that relativities do not matter in the real world. He is trying to present the case that the only focus should be on individual children and where they are and that therefore if all young children’s levels of achievement rise faster than those of, say, the 20 per cent. who are most disadvantaged, the increase in relativity does not matter. I would like him to confirm whether that is correct, because if that is the point that he is making, it is a profound one.
Does he agree that if overall standards rise for everybody but not as quickly for the most disadvantaged, what those children have to do to compete with other children is that much greater? It is not about levelling down. Gaps matter in the real world. That is why it is important to try to give children a fair opportunity to compete in terms of life chances.

Tim Loughton: What I said, as the right hon. Lady knows perfectly well, is that individual children are paramount. Relativity is secondary. That is the key  point. Let us take the example of neighbourhood nurseries, which have been a major contributor to the additional provision of nursery places in this country. Let us take a hypothetical situation. If a publicly funded neighbourhood nursery is set up on an initial three or five-year plan so that capital costs are paid up front, it can provide greater wages to attract child care workers—as has often been a criticism of part of the way that Sure Start works, for example. People are therefore attracted away from working for a local social services department or an independent or voluntary nursery. That would certainly help the new people being attracted to that neighbourhood nursery, at whom it is targeted, but it might be to the detriment of people who will no longer have the advantage of a skilled person working in social services—they may be working on child protection or other parts of child care—or another nursery, which has operated perfectly well, but which will have its sustainability brought into question.
That goes to the heart of some of the other amendments—in fact, it goes to the heart of the last amendment in this group. We should be mindful not to do things that undermine something that is already there. That is why I made the point earlier that, already, in increasing the number of child care places, we need to be convinced that the new places are of a better quality than those that they have replaced. We know that for every two child care places that have been produced over the past few years, one existing place has gone out of business. If that is because the place that was lost was of a lower quality, that is a perfectly fair achievement and one would not criticise it. However, if it is because some advantages have been given to the new places, which may not prove sustainable, and the existing places have been lost because there was an unfair playing field, that is entirely different. That is the point that the amendments are trying to get to.
In judging everything in the Bill, I return to the point that relativity is secondary to the outcomes and experience of the children. We want to take everybody up with us.

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend is explaining the arguments behind our group of amendments extremely well so I am loth to intervene, but the Minister has prompted me to do so. She pointed out that there are different speeds of improvement in nurseries. If some nurseries are not raising the quality of child care as fast as some child care providers elsewhere in the country, that is a cause for concern and we need to look at what is happening in the nurseries that are underperforming to see how we can raise the absolute level of child care in them, and not to concern ourselves that the gap may be wider or narrower. To take the point about relative poverty generally—

David Amess: Order. The hon. Gentleman was intervening on his colleague and should get to his question.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to you, Mr. Amess. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was trying to argue the point about relative poverty, which is referred to in the 10-year strategy. We need to ask ourselves the following question: would we rather achieve a rise in living standards for everybody at the same time as seeing the gap between the rich and the poor widen, or would we rather have a lowering of living standards for the poorest while seeing the gap narrowing? As policy makers, we sometimes have to face those dilemmas.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend puts things very succinctly, as always. I would rather see a minimum quality threshold below which we should not allow child care places, or whatever form of child care we are talking about, to fall. We should weed out those that fall below it and then seek to concentrate, as the amendment would require, on the most disadvantaged to take that threshold higher and higher. If that also closes the gap, it would be to the greater benefit of the case that Labour Members are making. However, that is not primary to what we are trying to achieve.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we have more than a century of social research in this country showing just how damaging relativities, particularly relative poverty, are? The Government should be congratulated on trying to close the gap. It is not good enough to increase the outcomes for the most disadvantaged if they are falling further and further behind the lowest of the advantaged. That is what the Bill is trying to prevent and it is important that the clause stands as it is because it is about reducing inequality and improving the life chances of everyone. Of course that is what we want, but we do not want too big a gap between the children at the bottom and those at the top. We know that relativity matters.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady has set out her stall and there is a clear distinction between that and the way in which we are approaching the matter, but we are trying to achieve the same thing. She has not added anything new to what we have said.
Amendment No. 67 refers to something that is guaranteed to raise the hackles of Conservative Members. Subsection (3) refers to targets and subsection (4) states that they should be met. If we are to have the dreaded word “targets” and references to it in the Bill, simply meeting them is not an end in itself. We would like the safeguard that any targets
“do not act against securing long term quality outcomes in the provision of childcare.”
I have given various examples of going hell for leather to produce a quantity of places—that is important because we have a shortage of places—but we will do no one any favours if we compromise the quality of the new places and hon. Members have given all sorts of reasons for that. There should be a check and that goes to the heart of sustainability. We will come to the requirements on local authorities, if not to provide child care places, to ensure that sufficient—whatever that means—child care places are available, but they must be sustainable.
I gave an example of the concern that some new nursery providers have their up-front costs provided, often from public funds. They may have a less sustainable business plan so that, having taken on people by paying them better wages than existing nursery providers who are doing a perfectly good job and in many cases a very good job as many surveys show, some existing providers may be driven out of business. If it turns out after five years that their business model was unsustainable, we will not have achieved what we set out to achieve because we will not have a range of sustainable child care places still available for the long term. That is why it is important to add to the clause a provision that targets are not the all-important issue. If we must have targets, they should be qualitative and not undermine the long-term goal of increasing the number of quality child care places available from a multiplicity of providers—public, local authority, the Government directly, Sure Start, neighbourhood nursery, independent, voluntary, through schools or whatever it may be.
We have put belt and braces on amendment No. 116, the final amendment in the group. The option is either/or. If we must keep the “met” part of the clause, we want to define it differently, so that one target is not met to the detriment of any other. The amendment tries to achieve the same thing as amendment No. 67, but we are giving the Government the option to choose the wording with which they feel more comfortable, if they are minded to take on any of the amendments. From the tone of the response from the Labour Back Benchers, it is looking less likely than it was half an hour ago. To repeat, I am bemused as to why any of them would not want to go along with something that seeks, as its ultimate goal, to raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.

Ann Coffey: I am slightly confused about the position of Opposition Members. The entire Bill is about raising the quality of early years provision. That is why a foundation stage is proposed as a basis against which any improvement in the quality of outcomes can be measured. Nobody would dream of saying that there should not be quality of outcomes, nor that outcomes should not be improved, but by focusing on that subject, which is not a point of contention, the hon. Gentleman is wriggling out of explaining why he is not prepared to accept that we must deal with inequalities. They will not be dealt with simply by setting quality standards.
I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example of why I feel strongly about that. Prior to being elected in 1992, I spent 20 years working as a social worker with some of the most disadvantaged and deprived families in Stockport. One reason why I went on to seek elected office was that it was not enough just to work one-to-one with individual families. It was clear to me that we must support them and have policies, locally and nationally, that help them.
Those families are the most difficult to help and support. If we consider all the evidence about what happens when we concentrate on providing better information and education to everybody, the least disadvantaged and better educated and informed people take advantage of that information and education. That leads to further exclusion for the most disadvantaged people and families.

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady makes a compelling argument for supporting the amendment. It inserts:
“raise quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.”
Surely, that is what she argues for.

Ann Coffey: But the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham says that the matter will be addressed by asking local authorities not to create measures to address the inequalities, nor to prioritise it, but to concentrate on raising quality of standards, which in itself, he says, will raise the outcomes of the most disadvantaged families. My experience tells me that it will not.

Tim Loughton: I refer the hon. Lady to the wording of the amendment, which says:
“raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.”
It is not just about raising qualities, but about raising the quality of the outcomes of the most disadvantaged. What is wrong with that?

Ann Coffey: There is nothing wrong with that, so I do not see why the hon. Gentleman cannot support the Government’s proposal, which gives local authorities a particular responsibility to address inequalities. However, I suspect that that is not his priority, as he believes that the problem will be addressed simply by raising the quality of child care.

Nick Gibb: Does the hon. Lady not understand that reducing inequalities could also be addressed by somehow hindering or hampering the best quality provision in an area? This is legislation and the wording must be precise. We want to raise the quality of provision to the most disadvantaged and not give local authorities a duty somehow to reduce the level and quality of provision elsewhere in Stockport.

Ann Coffey: I think that the hon. Gentleman encapsulates the Conservative position. Opposition Members believe that if we improve the situation for the better-off, a trickle-down effect will raise the standard for the least well-off. [Interruption.] He may not dare to say it, as it is clearly unacceptable, but that is the Conservative position.

Nick Gibb: That is not what we are talking about. We are discussing improving the quality of provision for those most in need. That is what our amendment says. However, as the Bill is worded, there could be a perceived duty on local authorities in some areas, not necessarily the hon. Lady’s, to make it more difficult for the best nurseries because, by allowing them to flourish, inequalities are somehow increased. That is precisely what the Bill says. We want to tighten up the  wording so that yet another Bill does not leave a Committee stage poorly worded, causing problems later.

Ann Coffey: The hon. Gentleman’s priority is to address inequality, and he wants the most disadvantaged children to benefit from better standards of child care. It would be helpful if, instead of relating his remarks to the providers of child care, he looked at the situation from the point of view of the children and families. That is why I referred to my experience as a social worker in Stockport, seeing the situation through the eyes of the children and their families there.

Helen Goodman: Once again, I have the impression that Opposition Members have not read the Bill. Subsection (1) does not simply say that local authorities must reduce inequalities, but that that they must
“improve the well-being of young children in their area”.
Therefore, a reduction in inequalities cannot be achieved by lowering standards or levelling down, but by raising standards, particularly for the most disadvantaged.

Ann Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Again, I cannot see why Opposition Members are not prepared to support the clause, as it appears from what they are saying to achieve the outcomes that they say they want.

Justine Greening: Surely there could be a scenario where the well-being of the most disadvantaged children was improved while the well-being of children from advantaged families was reduced. Surely we should tighten the wording to ensure that the latter does not happen, but the former does.

Ann Coffey: The hon. Lady is right. Theoretically that could happen, but all the evidence, particularly in public health, shows that unless a special effort is made with the most disadvantaged families, the gap widens. Addressing inequality must be a priority and not left to some other policy. I simply do not understand why Conservative Members have such a problem with reducing inequalities.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: On levelling down, it is important that Conservative Members read clause 1(1), which states:
“An English local authority must ... improve the well-being of young children in their area”.
Local authorities cannot reduce inequalities by lowering outcomes for the better-off. Outcomes must increase. We simply want to reduce inequalities by ensuring that the inequality of those at the bottom reduces faster.

Ann Coffey: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North.

Edward Miliband: The most revealing intervention was by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. He said that it would be a problem if the standards of disadvantaged nurseries  did not go up as fast as they did in other areas, but that is precisely what the amendment would allow. For example, if a local authority showed an improvement of 1 per cent. in the outcomes in the most deprived areas but 50 per cent. in the most affluent areas, that would be consistent with the amendment. We do not need a levelling down. We need to focus not simply on improving the well-being of children, but on reducing inequalities. I am afraid that the Conservatives have not learned anything from the past 15 years.

Ann Coffey: I so much agree with all my hon. Friends. We have made the point and I shall sit down.

Annette Brooke: This has certainly proved to be an interesting debate, to put it mildly. I shall start by going back to clause 1, which is important. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments behind it and I believe that Conservative Members also agree with those. Some of our debate has been slightly odd. I did not see much wrong with the wording of the amendments, but I have been troubled by what I have heard.
When we discussed the Children Bill, I moved an amendment in Committee which would have required that
“Equality of opportunity must be considered in relation to subsection 2(a) to (e)”.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B,14 October 2004; c. 151.]
Those were the five outcomes. We had a quite long debate on whether equality of opportunity should be weighed up against those. An interesting representation was made to me at the time by the Disability Rights Commission, which suggested that
“the Government should impose a specific statutory duty on children’s services authorities ... to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity for the disabled and ... the children of asylum seekers, for example.”
It is interesting that we had that debate all those months ago. I did not achieve what I wanted, but the then Minister said that I could have further reassurance and that the Government
“will make clear statements on that issue in the guidance that accompanies the two clauses.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 October 2004; c. 154.]
I was pleased when I saw that the Bill contained exactly what I had argued for. It is so important to early years that we get things right from the beginning. I cannot understand why anyone objects to amendment No. 66.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and I added our names to amendment No. 116, and I would like to explain why. The clause states that an authority must improve the well-being of young children in its area and reduce the inequalities between them. In a sense, I agree with the Government—the clause seems to say everything. However, it becomes problematic the more one thinks about how progress will be measured. I need only to refer to the spat about whether child poverty had been reduced or increased. Clearly, it is not easy to say one way or the other, and the answer depends on the definitions one uses.
The more the debate progressed, the more I realised that it is not a question of whether the two are mutually exclusive, or whether one should be first order and the other second order, but of how they will be manifested through regulations, and of how targets, if there are any, will be set and whether one target should be given priority over another. In principle, many authorities could say that they have done very well on the target for A but not quite so well on B. There are tensions, however one looks at the issue. Therefore, when I saw the Opposition amendments, I decided that it would be sensible to take a belt-and-braces approach, as there are incompatibilities and there will be problems ahead unless we get the legislation right.
The issue is under what circumstances we could show improvements under paragraphs (a) and (b) but perhaps not achieve what the Bill is trying to achieve. The 1 per cent. and 50 per cent. figures that were just thrown out are an example. Suppose that we improved the well-being of young children overall by just 1 per cent. but reduced inequalities by 50 per cent., or the other way around. The issue is, in fact, difficult. I hope that the Minister will address this conundrum. Are we giving equal weighting to the two? I believe that everybody in the Committee genuinely wants to achieve both but fears that reducing inequalities may be achieved by pulling everybody down. We are all clear on that, and I hope that she can explain how the clause will work.
I applaud the principles behind the clause, but there are some difficulties about how it will be implemented in practice and about unintended consequences if targets are set. Our job today is to avoid unintended consequences. I believe that that is the thrust of the official Opposition’s argument, and that is how I interpret the amendment. However, I get wary when we start suggesting that there should be minimum standards across the country. Minimums often become maximums as far as local authorities are concerned. I cannot support all the words that have been expressed from the Opposition Benches, but we are right to question the wording in the clause. We must think about the consequences and outcomes of this important part of the Bill.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I wanted to ask the hon. Lady for some examples. If we manage to improve the well-being of all young children in an area and manage to reduce inequality, what unintended consequences would result that would not be beneficial?

Annette Brooke: That would be an ideal, but do we really think that every child’s well-being will be improved? In that scenario, there is no incompatibility between the two, but I return to the example of child care provision being increased in one area but reduced in another, which can happen all the time with the sustainability of places. That starts skewing things. If the most unsustainable child care places are in disadvantaged areas but there is some growth in other areas, there might be an overall increase, but the other  requirement would not have been met. The more we talk about the issue, the more things go on and on. The Minister might stand up and say, “Right, we’re going to aspire to increase the outcomes for every single child at the same time as reducing inequalities,” but, I suspect that, much as we might like that ideal, that is not going to happen in the next few years.

Beverley Hughes: I did not think that such an interesting and lively debate would happen so quickly or that such a fundamental divide in values and philosophy between the two sides of the Committee would be exposed so soon. Let me start by clarifying for Members what this important clause, which has deliberately been placed at the forefront of the Bill, says. It says:
“An English local authority must—
(a) improve the well-being of young children in their area”—
that means all young children—and
“(b) reduce inequalities between young children in their area in relation to”
matters referred to elsewhere. The Bill deliberately starts with two equally important strands to the duty in relation to outcomes.
It is true that the Bill has a strong focus on improving the well-being of young children with the poorest outcomes, because Labour Members recognise that not all children get the best start in life and that future life chances still too often flow from a child’s background and wider social factors, such as income, ethnicity and social class. We want to increase social mobility. We want young children born into disadvantage to be able to progress through education and a good start. That is why we are putting a duty on local authorities to reduce inequalities between young children with the poorest outcomes and the rest.

Andrew Selous: Does the Minister agree that—to add to her list of the circumstances that affect the life chances of children—domestic stability in relation to the family background and parents is also an important factor?

Beverley Hughes: Certainly. I gave some examples; I did not intend the list to be exhaustive. We all know that stability is an important factor in enabling children to make the most of the opportunities available to them.
The debate exposed a fundamental difference between what the Government and Labour Members intend in terms of policy outcomes and what Opposition Members would be satisfied with. That is interesting because the Bill has been written in the way that it has to try to address a point that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised at the outset and that was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. They are interested in how the measures will work in practice and in getting to some of the detail about how we see our outcomes being delivered.
That is why the clause has been written as it has and not in the way proposed in amendments Nos. 64, 1 and 65. Those three amendments would mean that local authorities could satisfy the duty in the amended clause in a way that enabled outcomes to improve for  all children. However, the gap between the most disadvantaged and the rest could widen. I am afraid that that would be the outcome, because an authority would simply have to try to improve outcomes for everybody. If the outcomes for the most advantaged children increased faster and the gap widened, the local authority could still satisfy its duty. The way in which we want local authorities to fulfil that duty is to improve the outcomes for all children through excellent integrated education and child care, but to do so in a way that focuses on the most disadvantaged children and closes the gaps. That is how we want the duty to work.

Tim Loughton: This goes to the heart of our debate. The wording of amendment No. 64 is
“to raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged”,
and therefore concentrate resources or attention—whatever it may take—on the most disadvantaged. If that happens and it is done properly, the outcomes and the improvement of the most disadvantaged should be greater than any improvement of the already best advantaged. If the Minister is so obsessed with the gap, it will close. That is exactly what amendment No. 64 says.

Beverley Hughes: I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. First, I do not believe for a moment that his wording would achieve that outcome. His amendment says nothing about giving greater emphasis to the most disadvantaged children.
Secondly, when we explained that the outcome in the amendment could be satisfied while widening the gap, some Opposition Members, notably the hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and, I think, for Bromsgrove—who has now left her seat—indicated from a sedentary position that that did not matter. [Interruption.] He repeats it now.
There is confusion, disarray and disagreement. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham disagrees with the interpretation of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton about the amendment. How can we take seriously the charge that has been made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that what he intended with the amendment was precisely what the Government intended: to close the gap? His amendment will not do that, and it is clear that some of his hon. Friends do not want it to do that anyway.

Tim Loughton: Before the Minister completely confuses everybody, may I place on record that my hon. Friend and I have said exactly the same thing? There is not a fag paper between us on the matter.

Beverley Hughes: All I can say is that it must be a pretty thick fag paper when the hon. Gentleman can say that his intention is a greater focus on disadvantaged children to improve their outcomes faster, but his hon. Friend can accept that that would not be the outcome and does not care.

Nick Gibb: We are concerned about raising the quality of outcomes for the most disadvantaged; the Government in office should ensure that the poor-performing child care centres and schools raise their standards. If, because of external factors, the better-performing child care centres improve even faster, regardless of what the Government do, because the institution appointed a head who happened to be very good, for example, it is not the duty of the local authority to somehow hinder the good performance of top-quality child care provision.
Will the Minister assure the Committee and put on record that what the Bill means by a duty to reduce inequality is a duty to improve the quality of child care where it performs below the levels of the best, and that it is in no way a duty to a local authority to penalise or otherwise hinder child care provision that performs exceptionally well? Will she assure the Committee and the public that that is not what she intends by the clause?

Beverley Hughes: To deal simply with that question, I shall assure the hon. Gentleman that the drive behind trying to improve the outcomes for children is to do that in part through driving up the quality of children’s early-years experiences if they are in a child care setting and cared for other than by their parents. That is the focus of the clause and, indeed, the Bill. Research shows a direct correlation between the quality of that care and the qualifications of those delivering it and the outcomes for children.
With respect, the hon. Gentleman is a little confused. While there is a link, the clause deals with outcomes for children. That will be the local authority’s focus. To show that it has satisfied its duty, it will have to demonstrate how children under five are developing and progressing in their early years environment. We want the local authority to focus on two aspects; that all children are progressing upwards as fast as possible and reaching their potential and that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are progressing faster. That relates in part to the quality of the setting that the children are in, but the focus of the clause is on the children’s progress.
If we consider the clause in that light, amendments Nos. 64, 1 and 65 will not have the right result, because they could increase outcomes for all children while widening the achievement gap between the most disadvantaged and the rest. The Government do not want to allow that to happen. We want the local authority to deliver its duty in a way that improves outcomes for all and at the same time narrows the gap. That is not levelling down; it is levelling up.

Nick Gibb: What would the Minister say a high-performing local authority that manages to get an improvement of 10 per cent., however it is measured, in its most deprived areas should do? It has done really well. It has achieved a 10 per cent. increase—
Beverley Hughesrose—

Nick Gibb: Hang on. It has achieved a 10 per cent. increase in the quality of the provision of that child care, it has done extremely well and it is receiving accolades from all over the place, but at the same time the better-performing child care facilities in the area have miraculously improved by 15 per cent. It has done really well in regard to the lowest-performing child care facilities, but, outside their control, there has been an even greater improvement in the better-performing ones. What should the local authority do in those circumstances? Should it be penalised, despite its great achievement at the bottom end of the scale?

Beverley Hughes: Again, I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the issue; the outcomes for children. I think that he was assuming in his example that, in high-performing settings, it would only be advantaged children and, in low-performing settings, disadvantaged children. However, he should stop thinking about the settings and think about the children. If different settings are improving developmental progress at different rates, whether the local authority is fulfilling both aspects of its duty— improving outcomes for all and raising outcomes for disadvantaged children more rapidly—will depend on where the disadvantaged children are and on their progress.
There is no question of any settings being penalised. It will become apparent from the draft guidance that we shall publish that we want to give local authorities practical advice about the sort of mechanisms that they will need to put in place to do what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham wants; to focus on where each child is and, when assessing the impact of early years provision, to ensure that all children have made progress over a period, but that children from disadvantaged backgrounds have made more progress. We want to do that simply because we know that in real life, unless we start to close the gap, children from disadvantaged backgrounds always have a much bigger hurdle to overcome than other children. Trying to reduce the size of that hurdle for children from disadvantaged backgrounds is why there is a double lock in the clause. The way in which it is drafted is important not simply because of our own values but because we know from academic research that unless we try to reduce inequalities we will never give the most disadvantaged children the same opportunities to take advantage of education and to move on as other children can do.

Justine Greening: I am intrigued by the Minister’s words. The Government have been in power for eight years, presumably trying to reduce inequality, yet social mobility in this country has reduced during that time. My concern is that if the Minister wants to refer in the Bill to inequality, surely the outcome for which the Government should be looking is social mobility, not some blunt definition of inequality. Surely they should be looking for equality of opportunity.

Beverley Hughes: We must be clear about what it is feasible to measure in the Bill. We know that if we can reduce inequality we will give children from disadvantaged backgrounds a bigger opportunity to  become socially mobile, to do better in their later education, to go on to higher education and to get better jobs. They will become socially mobile in the way that many of us in this House who were born after the last pioneering Labour Government did. That is what we want to achieve.

Helen Goodman: The notion of achieving social mobility for children under the age of five seems incredible. I do not understand how children aged between 13 and 36 months could be socially mobile. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend explained more clearly than I did the point that I was trying to make. Social mobility is not something that can be measured in the time scale of a young child. It takes place over a much longer period. We want to ensure that local authorities can demonstrate that they are achieving change and improvement for the most disadvantaged children—[Interruption.] If I may finish my point; that means measuring and assessing with practitioners in children’s centres the developmental progress that individual children are making. In doing so, we can demonstrate that everyone is going upwards but that the most disadvantaged children are going upwards faster because the facility—the children’s centre or nursery—is focusing on all children but focusing on their individual starting points and needs, and trying to ensure that those starting from a point further back are helped to reach the same developmental position as their peers. It is as simple as that and it is important to keep the provision in the Bill. There is clear evidence that integrated childhood services, which the Bill also brings about, give children a head start in life. That is particularly the case for young children who would otherwise still have the poorest outcomes.
It is important to have measures to evaluate clearly how outcomes are being improved for young children. We have given the Secretary of State the power to set targets for the achievement of the duties to reduce inequalities and improve the well-being of all children. The Bill requires local authorities to act in a manner that is best calculated to meet any such targets that are set. Those statutory targets will ensure that new duties are appropriately represented through the local authority performance management systems of inspection and assessment.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham stressed the importance of the quality of provision in helping local authorities to meet the duty. As we come to discuss later parts of the Bill, I hope that Opposition Members will be assured that the quality of the provision that young children experience is fundamental to their progress, which is why it is such an important issue for us.
 I have dealt fairly thoroughly with amendments Nos. 64, 1 and 65. I do not accept that the proposed wording would bring any greater focus on disadvantaged children and therefore, because our objective relates to reducing the gap by levelling up, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendments.
Amendment No. 66 would require statutory targets for local authorities to reduce inequalities between young children to be based on qualitative outcomes; in other words, on judgments. The amendment would limit the power of the Secretary of State, in the areas where she might be minded to set necessary targets, to look only at those areas where a judgment would be required. That could result in the exclusion of important sets of data which have a direct link to children’s outcomes. For example, we could not use the quantitative measure of the number of children in workless households, a key indicator of child poverty.
Although it will be important for us to set quantitative targets, that does not mean that pre-school children will be tested or scored. I am not sure whether that was the concern behind the amendment. One of the best direct measures of child outcomes is the foundation stage profile, which assesses developmental progress and achievement across six areas of learning; for example, social, emotional and physical development, understanding the world and creative development, as listed in clause 41.
Achievement is measured against certain stepping stones that are given a number for reference—levels 1, 2, 3 and 4—but the assessment of each step is based on a qualitative judgment by a teacher or child care professional. Practitioners are able to record the achievement of scale points throughout the reception year, as it is purely based on their observations of a child’s achievements. We would not want to place any obstacle in the way of using that approach.
Clearly, the Government have an existing public sector agreement target to ensure that 50 per cent. of children are achieving a good level of communication, language and development by the end of the foundation stage and to reduce inequalities. This power would allow us to set specific targets for local authorities to raise the number of children achieving good levels to ensure high standards in all local authority areas.

Tim Loughton: On the point that the Minister made about not being able to accept the amendment because it would mean that targets were based on judgments, surely all of the well-being provisions are based on judgments, starting with the one on physical and mental health and emotional well-being. They all involve judgments. The subjects do not sit a multiple-selection test in order to satisfy the requirements. So, we are not talking about something that is mutually exclusive in relation to the idea that some of her criteria about non-working members of families could not be taken into consideration. It is important that we get the figures, but the quality of what we are applying to the children is more important.

Beverley Hughes: I did not say that I did not accept the amendment because it would require targets to be based on qualitative outcomes; quite the opposite. I said that the amendment would mean that we could only set targets that were based on qualitative outcomes. Clearly, we will want to set targets in relation to children’s outcomes that are qualitative and judgmental, but we will also want to set some targets  that are related to children’s outcomes but which must be expressed numerically and quantitatively, such as in the example that I gave. According to advice I have received, the amendment as it is phrased would exclude the Secretary of State from being able to set targets that were expressed in such a form.

Tim Loughton: But the amendment refers to outcomes, not inputs. There is nothing to bar the Minister from judging the eligibility of certain families because of non-working members, and that has nothing to do with outcomes. The amendment is purely about qualitative outcomes, not inputted figures.

Beverley Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but some outcomes from local authority activity—not children’s outcomes—will be directed at generally improving developmental progress; for example, the number of children from workless households or the percentage of mothers breastfeeding. Local authorities will work to achieve certain outcomes because they are directly related to children’s well-being, but they cannot express them in qualitative terms.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is referring only to children’s outcomes. I had interpreted the amendment as more generally about outcomes that are linked to the target-setting process. If he will clarify precisely what his point is, I will reconsider the amendment.

Tim Loughton: The Minister is struggling to understand why she opposes the amendment. I do not think that quality and quantity are mutually exclusive, but if she is offering to reconsider the amendment and if the word “quantitative” as well as “qualitative” were inserted, that would deal with the matter. I have said time and again that I would not be satisfied if we were just to double the number of child care places. I will be satisfied if we double—or whatever it takes—the number of quality child care places. This is not solely a numbers game, and that is what is at the heart of the amendment.

Beverley Hughes: Now I really am confused. I thought the hon. Gentleman’s point was that the amendment was about children’s outcomes, which will necessarily be qualitative.

Tim Loughton: That is what I said.

Beverley Hughes: The quality of child care is not necessarily wholly expressed in terms of qualitative outcomes, because one must link the definition of quality of child care to, for example, the number of staff with qualifications at a certain level, which becomes quantitative.
I honestly believe that the hon. Gentleman is clear about what he means and what his intention is. At least I thought that he was when he said that he was just talking about children’s outcomes, but it is clear from his second intervention that he is not. If he explains his  position with greater clarity, I will be happy to look at the amendment again. Let us leave the debate on that issue at this point.
The last two amendments, Nos. 67 and 116, seem to imply that local authorities should be able to decide for themselves whether statutory targets should be pursued. Clearly, when setting targets, central Government must take care that they are designed to improve outcomes and avoid creating perverse effects. We also accept that central targets must relate to local government circumstances and to local authorities’ views and experiences. In practice, we envisage setting targets through an existing process called priorities meetings, which take place between strategic advisers in Government offices, the local authority, health services and whichever other partners the authority wishes to invite. We will set out the process for setting statutory targets in regulations, but the process that already exists necessarily involves a discussion with the local authority and key partners about where they are and where they need to get to as part and parcel of target setting. It is not something that central Government simply land on a chief executive’s desk.
Statutory targets are an important lever to drive change in public services. Amendment No. 116 would place a duty on the local authorities to ensure that they do not achieve one set of targets at the expense of another. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, and I recognise that care is needed when setting targets to avoid unintended and perverse effects, but I do not feel that that extra duty on local authorities is necessary.
I do not think that it is necessary, nor appropriate in terms of the Government’s intentions, to accept any of the amendments, and certainly not amendments Nos. 64, 65, 1, 67 and 116. If the hon. Gentleman wants to re-present amendment No.66, I shall be happy to reconsider it.

Tim Loughton: We have had an interesting and lively discussion about the amendments, and I am glad that at this early stage we have brought the Committee and certain Members to life. We could call this clause the “mind the gap” clause, because everything that the Minister and her colleagues have spoken about has concentrated on the gap. The great enemy of children’s development is the gap. It is a point; I can see why they say so and where they are coming from.
As far as we are concerned, the biggest priority is the development, promotion and encouragement of children and their achievements, and the outcomes and the quality of those outcomes. That is absolutely essential. The reason why we phrased amendment No. 64 in terms of the outcomes of the most disadvantaged is because that is a target—in another sense of the word—that Labour Members should find hard to resist.
If I may return to the discussion about poverty, I have just found the report issued yesterday by Save the Children. It is entitled, “The Government’s Invisible Million: Britain’s Poorest Children”. It says that
“current policies appear to have made little impact on children in most need.”
It continues, saying that the Government
“does not have a strategy to help the most vulnerable children. Until it has a strategy for the poorest, the Government will fail to meet the target of ending child poverty by 2020.”
Those are not my words nor a judgment by anybody on the Opposition Benches, but a report yesterday from Save the Children.
There are serious problems with the most disadvantaged children in society. They should have the most attention, and the Bill should specify that those children should have the most attention. Hence the wording in our amendment, which refers to
“the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.”
That is what it is all about.
Let us take a hypothetical case: Johnny and Jimmy, probably not politically correct—[Interruption.] Johnny and Janey. There we are, although it is still not politically correct enough to satisfy everybody on the Government Benches. On the well-being scale, whatever that counts for, Johnny—alas—languishes at No. 1 and Janey flourishes at No. 10.
As a result of the measures placing obligations on local authorities to raise the well-being criteria, Johnny zooms up from one to nine, and Janey zooms up from to 10 to 20. Both have improved enormously. If Johnny goes from one to 13 and Janey goes from 10 to 20, I shall be delighted, because each will have improved. The gap is of secondary importance. We should concentrate on the fact that they have both made progress.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) misrepresented what Conservative Members seek by saying that it relies on the trickle-down approach. It does not do that. The trickle-down approach, whatever that constitutes, implicitly does not concentrate on the most disadvantaged. The amendment implicitly concentrates on the most disadvantaged.

Beverley Hughes: Labour Members would also be delighted with the progress made by the hypothetical children in both those examples, one going from one to nine and the other from 10 to 20, and one going from one to 13 and the other from 10 to whatever it may be. The difference is that, while example one would be enough for Conservative Members, it would not be enough for us. That is the critical difference.

Tim Loughton: That brings me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton rightly made: how do we achieve that outcome? There are only two ways to narrow the gap: we reduce the achievement of the best achievers or cap it. [Hon. Members: “How?”] Logically, there are two ways of reducing the gap, which is why I am raising the question if Labour Members are so concerned about it. The first is to cap or reduce the upper achievers; the second is to concentrate on raising the standard of the bottom ones, but without having an impact on the better achievers.
How will the Minister physically do that? If the better achievers continue to achieve better physical and mental health and emotional well-being, how will she haul that achievement back in? If the Government are confident that concentrating on the most disadvantaged works, as we say it should, and they get it right, the most disadvantaged should whizz away: they have the greatest potential to do better, because they are nearer the bottom. That may then close the gap, which will please Labour Members, but, more importantly, it will improve outcomes for those children.
Yesterday I visited a school in the most deprived ward in my constituency. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I both represent West Sussex seats and, between us, have the highest number of most deprived wards of any of the West Sussex constituencies. They are coastal strips with high levels of deprivation. For example, some of those wards have the highest number of teenage pregnancies. By all the Government’s standards, they are not affluent, rural, leafy wards.
I went to visit a fantastic primary school, which had been voted school of the year by a local paper. The excellent head, who has been there for six years, had previously served in another very deprived ward in my hon. Friend’s constituency and had achieved great things there. She has done a great job with the school in a deprived area, and it is now well over-subscribed. She has not done that by saying that other schools in better-achieving parts of my constituency should be reined back or by taking children from the catchment areas of other schools.
Edward Milibandrose—

Tim Loughton: Let me finish the point, because the hon. Gentleman gets very excited by these matters. My example is of someone who is looking after children who would be expected to be nearer Johnny at No. 1 on the scale but achieved an enormous amount by bringing up the level of those disadvantaged children while entirely oblivious of, and unconcerned about, how well the better achievers happened to be doing in a more affluent part of my constituency. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive, which is why we want to concentrate on the most disadvantaged.
Edward Milibandrose—

Tim Loughton: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman before he bursts.

Edward Miliband: I am in no danger of bursting, despite the hon. Gentleman’s strange example, which is utterly irrelevant to the clause or the amendment. We are discussing local authorities and whether they have a duty simply to worry about the standards of the disadvantaged—that is entirely consistent with the life chances of the disadvantaged—falling massively  behind other groups in society, or whether they need to worry about the life chances of the disadvantaged relative to other groups. That has nothing to do with the head teacher and whether she is doing a good job—I am sure she is. It is about the priorities of local authorities. We know historically that local authorities, especially those with mixed communities, have not been concerned not just with the standards of the disadvantaged, but with the standards of the disadvantaged relative to others in society.

Tim Loughton: I do not know how to say this loud enough to the hon. Gentleman. My head teacher, who has achieved so much, is oblivious to what other schools are achieving. She has achieved so much because she has got the local authority to take seriously the problems of deprivation and so on in her area, and she has brought about an enormous improvement in co-operation between a wide body of parties that are interested in raising the standards of the most disadvantaged children. If a similar school a few miles away in a less deprived part of my constituency happens to be doing even better, that is of little consequence to what she is achieving for the pupils in her school.
We want to concentrate primarily on the quality of outcomes for the most disadvantaged, and if that reduces the gaps which have such paramount importance for Labour Members that would be a bonus. The primary responsibility should be to ensure that the most disadvantaged get help. That is why amendment No. 64 is so important. I shall press it to a vote because it is essential.

Nick Gibb: Is it not the case that the key consideration is to improve the quality of child care, and is not that what paragraph 2.16 of the 10-year child care strategy says when it discusses the effective provision of pre-school education research? It states:
“Those who started in a good quality pre-school at two or younger were up to 10 months ahead of those without pre-school”.
It continued:
“However, the studies indicate that high levels of group care of poor quality below the age of three can have a ... negative effect on behaviour for some children.”
The key is to improve the quality of child care provision. That is what matters and that is how to improve the outcome for all. It does not matter if the quality of child care elsewhere in the borough is higher. The key is to improve in absolute terms—that is what the effective provision of pre-school curriculum study discussed—the quality of child care. Then there will be improvement in the outcomes, which is what we all want.
Several hon. Membersrose—

Tim Loughton: We are in danger of having interventions on interventions, such is the excitement of Labour Members.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us say that the gap widens, with whatever unintended consequences, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, because the better-off seem to be doing even better despite the local authority going hell for leather to concentrate its resources, time, effort and everything else on the most disadvantaged children and their welfare outcomes. Is it the fault of the local authority that, although it has done a tremendous job in improving the standards of the most disadvantaged, the measurements show that the gap has widened? What penalty will be brought against it if the gap has widened, but all standards have gone up considerably? At the end of the day, that is the question to which local authorities need and deserve an answer, and that is why it is most important that the authority does its job and concentrates on the most disadvantaged rather than on narrowing a gap, which may or may not produce a better outcome for everybody.
I am genuinely grateful for the Minister’s comments on amendment No. 66, as I think that we are arguing for the same thing. However, I do not think that she made a good case, or that she believed in the case that she was trying to make, as to why a qualitative element should not be inserted. As I said, quality does not feature in the Bill, although it features in the principles and aims that the Minister has agreed we need to try to achieve. Including a qualitative element but not excluding some quantitative valuations for obvious reasons—she cited some examples—would send out a helpful signal to local authorities when trying to implement the measure.
I was not as convinced by the Minister’s criticism of amendments Nos. 67 and 116, which would ensure that the targets were not, in effect, self-defeating. She claimed that they would leave it to local authorities to decide on the use of targets, but that would not be the case, as we have not suggested removing subsection (3), which relies on the Secretary of State to prescribe targets if that is what must happen to measure the outcomes. It would be a requirement of the Secretary of State, not a judgment of a local authority, to ensure that one target does not undermine another one. So the Minister’s case against the amendments does not stack up. She claimed that they would do something that, clearly, they could not do unless the first line of subsection (3) were removed.
Having said that, there is a clear division between the Opposition and the Government. Labour appear to be concentrating on gaps and we are concentrating on the quality and equality of opportunity for all children, regardless of artificial gaps.

Beverley Hughes: I want to make it absolutely clear yet again that there are two strands to the duty. The first is to improve the well-being of all young children in the area. That reflects the wording in the 2004 Act,  with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar. The second strand is about reducing inequalities, and that is why we can argue that the clause is about levelling up, not levelling down.

Tim Loughton: We take no issue with improving well-being, but such improvement is contingent on the size of the gap between the well-being of the least well off and the well-being of the best off. That is what is at stake. The two are entirely contingent.

Edward Miliband: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: We have had a full debate, but we are going around in circles.

Edward Miliband: It is a new point.

Tim Loughton: I very much doubt it.
It would be useful for the Committee to stake our ground at this stage on the basis that amendment No. 64 specifically, implicitly and unambiguously urges local authorities to concentrate and devote time, resources and the greatest effort to the most disadvantaged children, who most need the well-being outcomes of fiscal and mental health.

Annette Brooke: I do not usually like to abstain on anything, but mixed messages have arisen from the Conservative contributions and there have been contrary statements. I am happy with the clause, but I am not happy with the contributions. There is a problem because, whatever the hon. Gentleman says, there have been contrary contributions from other hon. Members in his team.

Tim Loughton: I am devastated. At one stage, I thought that we might have the hon. Lady on side. She says that it is not in her nature to abstain, but it has been recent Liberal Democrat practice to vote one way in the House of Commons and another way in the House of Lords on identical issues in the Children and Adoption Bill. However, I shall not push that further.
On the basis that we are most concerned about the most disadvantaged and that we need to send a clear message to local authorities, I propose that we put the amendment to the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 5, Noes 10.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 176, in clause 1, page 1, leave out line 16 and insert—
‘(3)The Secretary of State may require a local authority to work with relevant partners in co-operation with other local providers of childcare to submit proposed targets and supporting information before prescribing targets for:’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 118, in clause 4, page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
‘(1)For the purposes of this section the relevant partners of a local authority in England are those specified in section 10(4) of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31).’.
No. 73, in clause 4, page 3, line 19, after ‘Trust’, insert ‘or other health trusts’.
No. 180, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, at end insert—
‘(c)a person providing services under section 114 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) in any part of the area of the authority;
(d)the Learning and Skills Council for England.’.
No. 119, in clause 4, page 3, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2)Each local authority in England, in the performance by the authority of its duties under sections 1 and 3, must make arrangements to promote co-operation between—
(a)the authority;
(b)each of the authority’s relevant partners; and
(c)such other persons or bodies as the authority considers appropriate, being persons or bodies of any nature who exercise functions or are engaged in activities in relation to young children in the authority’s area.’.
No. 87, in clause 4, page 3, line 23, leave out ‘work with’ and insert ‘promote co-operation between’.
No. 120, in clause 4, page 3, line 41, at end add—
‘(7)In making arrangements under this section, a local authority in England must have regard to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the well-being of young children.’.

Annette Brooke: Amendment No. 176 has, in a sense, been pre-empted by Government amendments Nos. 128 and 129, but, nevertheless, I want to run through the intention behind it. When I saw that the clause stated:
“The Secretary of State may prescribe targets”
I thought of centralisation and everything coming from London. I immediately wanted to table an amendment, although it is probably not expressed in the best possible way. I wanted to say firmly that, particularly as far as child care is concerned, any target setting should be bottom up rather than top down. As the Bill stands, the target setting looks very top down. When we discuss Government amendments Nos. 128 and 129, we will see that that provision is being withdrawn. However, the matter is being dealt with under regulations. I do not know whether the Minister accepts my concern or whether it will just be less transparent that the Government are to prescribe targets from the centre.
The Local Government Association wants the removal of subsection (3). It argues that there are already well established local inspection processes—such as those carried out by Ofsted and CSCI, and the new joint area review processes—as well as extensive local performance data. It clearly says that there is no need for centrally imposed targets. Given the record and outcomes of some top-down targets that have  been set throughout a number of services, it is essential that targets are worked out locally and submitted within a framework to the Secretary of State.
I accept that the Government might want to keep an overall eye on matters and pull up standards where local authorities might not have the same drive as others to achieve what the Government wish to see, which is a genuine reduction in inequalities. That must be monitored. Equally, I do not see how the Government can take on board from the centre particular local circumstances, without knowing what is on the ground and the particular problems in an area in the same way that the local providers do. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that.
Interestingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and I have signed up to amendment No. 118, although we have an alternative—amendment No. 180. Both amendments query how many partners there should be. I can see the logic in having the same list of partners as in the Children Act 2004. That is why I signed my name to amendment No. 118. However, I looked at the heading of the clause, and it talks about young children, who are defined as being under five years old.
I was not too sure whether we needed a reference to the youth offending team, so I rewrote amendment No. 180, incorporating from the Children Act, the Learning and Skills Council. I shall talk a great deal about the quality, training and qualifications of the children’s work force. It is imperative that we include everything related to training in the local area, which now, possibly at a regional level, may come from the Learning and Skills Council.
Amendment No. 118 is a better amendment if we are talking about children under 14 years old—in other words, we would not be talking about the extended schools when we were talking about all the partners. Amendment No. 180 is more appropriate and better than this part of the Bill if we confine ourselves to children under five. The number of partners is significant.
Conservatives have tabled amendment No. 73 to add other trusts to the partners. The Dorset Health Care NHS Trust is responsible for children’s mental illness services in most of Dorset. In parts of the west, the general hospital is responsible, and I can see the point of having other trusts. The Dorset Health Care Trust comes under the strategic health authority, so there is an argument there for the amendment. With mental illnesses, it is important to include all relevant bodies. The Dorset Health Care Trust also covers adults with mental illnesses. Again, that is appropriate in terms of looking at the child care of those adults.
I support amendment No. 73. It has a particular local significance to me. The other amendments hinge upon not only the number of partners, but the way in which they shall work together or co-operate. They are probing amendments to establish whether there is a difference between “working together” and “co-operating”. Co-operation is clearly in the Children Act, and there could be an argument for using the same terminology for the sake of consistency, or perhaps the  Minister will say that there is a particular reason for the words “working together” to be in the Bill. It is a probing amendment, as I want the wording to be correct and compatible with existing legislation.
Amendment No. 120 again picks up what is in the 2004 Act and ensures that parents are firmly in the equation. I cannot see any objection to the amendment, as we surely all want to see a role for parents in carrying out a co-operative duty or indeed in working together.

Tim Loughton: This is another wide-ranging group of amendments, which also straddles clause 4.
When I introduced the first group of amendments, I said that they were probing amendments. In the end, they turned out to be more probing than we had expected and amendment No. 64 was pressed to a vote. These are supposed to be probing amendments, and we shall see how much progress we make with them. I do not believe that they are contentious and I am sure that the Minister will have good, practical reasons why, although what we are proposing may accord with what she is trying to achieve, they could give rise to practical difficulties if included in the Bill.
I fully take on board the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and believe that we are coming from the same direction. I shall perhaps elaborate on her comments about the list of partners taken from the Children Act 2004, because the amendments are very much based on that Act. If it were not called the Children Act, I would not have to say Children Act 2004, which is a very good reason why it should have been given a different title, as we suggested earlier in the year. However, that is just another consequence of something that we were right about.
Amendment No. 118 substitutes the relevant partners listed in section 10 of the 2004 Act. My concern and that of local authorities is that everything in the Bill seems to rest in their lap. We expect a lot of them, because they are clearly the major delivery mechanism, or the overseers of the proper functioning of the delivery mechanisms. However, they cannot do that in isolation. That was recognised in the 2004 Act, which brought together a range of partners. Part of the reason for that Act, which we fully supported, was that the protection of children cannot be delegated to a social worker, for example, on his or her own. It must be a social worker who is primarily responsible for a certain child, working in co-operation, sharing information and acting jointly with and, in the knowledge of, health partners, justice partners, family—I shall come to that amendment later—and a host of other bodies. That point, which we all accepted in the 2004 Act, needs to be reinforced here, so we are trying to elaborate on the partners by replicating section 10. Clause 4 limits the partners to the strategic health authority or the primary care trust and to the Learning and Skills Council, which I think is what is referred to in clause 4(1)(b).
The hon. Lady said that she did not agree with including all the bodies in the 2004 Act, because it refers, for example, to the Youth Justice Board.

Annette Brooke: Those were not exactly my words. I said that more of the other bodies would be relevant if we were talking about child care provision for under-14s than if we were talking only about children under five. A young child is defined as being under five. Therefore, I ask the Minister to say exactly what we are talking about. There is scope further on in the Bill, where it clearly refers to under-14s, for the whole range of partnerships.

Tim Loughton: I take the hon. Lady’s point, but I misunderstood her. I thought that she said that the Youth Justice Board, for example, was not relevant to children under five, although she just said that it is, perhaps, less relevant.
I entirely concur, however, with the hon. Lady’s point on mental health trusts, which are not explicitly mentioned in the clause. Our amendment No. 73 deals with the issue. Mental health trusts may apply to children under five—worrying figures were released recently about the incidence of mental illness in very young children—but they particularly can and do apply to parents or siblings of the child. Obviously, that will have an impact on well-being and the measures that will need to be taken to improve the well-being and welfare standards that we talked about earlier. The same principles should apply to the Youth Justice Board. A young parent or brothers and sisters of a child under five or eight, whichever category we are talking about, may be subject to the Youth Justice Board.
Therefore, it is reasonable that all the partners that we rightly included in the 2004 Act should apply in the Bill, albeit in different measure. I do not want to open up an argument about the gap between the different influences of those different partners, but I do not see any problem with including all those set out in the 2004 Act, as they all have a role to play. Section 10(4) lists the local authority, the police authority, the local probation board, youth offending teams, the strategic health authority and primary care trust and the Learning and Skills Council. I am simply trying to make the Bill consistent with what we already have in legislation. If the Minister can tell me why that is not necessary, or why it would be counter-productive, we would be happy to listen to her reasoning.
The next amendment tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends is amendment No. 73. I have not looked it up, but I seem to recall having raised a similar question on the 2004 Act. Why does clause 4 refer only to strategic health authorities and PCTs? The hon. Lady raised the example that I had planned to raise of social care and mental health trusts, which are not specifically included in the list. We had this discussion with the Minister’s predecessor on the 2004 Act. Perhaps we could have some clarification as to why they are not included. If there is not a case for leaving them out, what damage would it do to the Bill to include them, particularly at a time when the various health services are being reconfigured anyway? There  is much greater use of the private and independent sectors, which would not in the normal definition be included in strategic health authority or PCT. Including health partners generally would be much more useful and all-encompassing than referring to only those two bodies, whose lifespan is in question under the current reforms.
Amendment No. 119 also harks back to the 2004 Act and the whole business of co-operation. The Bill does not talk about co-operation but about working with. We had some interesting discussions on the 2004 Act about co-operation meaning that everybody has a part to play, rather than the buck ending up with the local authority, which has to work with the other  bodies without any mutual payback. Again, I am trying to make the Bill consistent with the 2004 Act, and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me why its phrasing needs to be slightly different.
Our next amendment in the group is amendment No. 87, which would replace “work with” with the words “promote co-operation between”. That is repeated later.

It being One o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at Four o’clock.